02-25-2025, 05:04 AM
I'd like to think he's being forced out in part for agreeing to a 10-year ACC commitment to poorer records for the teams because of travel. Someone up there may have figured that out.
Bernard Muir to Resign
02-25-2025, 08:56 AM
(02-24-2025, 11:32 PM)fullmetal Wrote: The only thing I'd be worried about w.r.t. AL's tenure is his ability to navigate the boosters and handle all the different egos. But other than that, what are the experienced people in the athletic department going to tell him to do? That the status quo is okay? I feel like each sport's coaches can make their own case for what resources they need for their respective teams to win. Hopefully AL relies on the numbers folks to tell him the long- and short-term forecasts for the department's numbers.
But my immediate take on DAPER opinions is of course they're not going to like Andrew coming in and proposing change. It's going to be up to them to make the case to Luck that things need to be a certain way. If they don't make a good enough case, then I expect Andrew will not go their way. DAPER has to be (institutionally) in favor of minimal change, and Andrew probably sees the need for change in a few places if not more.
I'm not saying that AL will be making immediate and brilliant decisions, but I am saying that we need to consider the risk-averse nature of DAPER and their interest in minimizing change as we listen to what comes out. This also tells us that DAPER is not ready to "disagree and commit" with Luck, which is not great if they're planning to drag their feet and sabotage efforts to change (dramatic, I know).
Where the hell was DAPER when the world was burning down years ago???
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
(02-24-2025, 11:32 PM)fullmetal Wrote: The only thing I'd be worried about w.r.t. AL's tenure is his ability to navigate the boosters and handle all the different egos. But other than that, what are the experienced people in the athletic department going to tell him to do? That the status quo is okay? I feel like each sport's coaches can make their own case for what resources they need for their respective teams to win. Hopefully AL relies on the numbers folks to tell him the long- and short-term forecasts for the department's numbers.
But my immediate take on DAPER opinions is of course they're not going to like Andrew coming in and proposing change. It's going to be up to them to make the case to Luck that things need to be a certain way. If they don't make a good enough case, then I expect Andrew will not go their way. DAPER has to be (institutionally) in favor of minimal change, and Andrew probably sees the need for change in a few places if not more.
I'm not saying that AL will be making immediate and brilliant decisions, but I am saying that we need to consider the risk-averse nature of DAPER and their interest in minimizing change as we listen to what comes out. This also tells us that DAPER is not ready to "disagree and commit" with Luck, which is not great if they're planning to drag their feet and sabotage efforts to change (dramatic, I know).
Where the hell was DAPER when the world was burning down years ago???
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
02-25-2025, 09:00 AM
(02-25-2025, 05:04 AM)M T Wrote: I'd like to think he's being forced out in part for agreeing to a 10-year ACC commitment to poorer records for the teams because of travel. Someone up there may have figured that out.
of course I always wonder how much lovely parting gifts play in "resignations" (if he is resigning), we may find out in a future form 990
and if I'm Muir I'm not happy that this leaked (well maybe he leaked it) and left him hanging in the wind.
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(02-25-2025, 05:04 AM)M T Wrote: I'd like to think he's being forced out in part for agreeing to a 10-year ACC commitment to poorer records for the teams because of travel. Someone up there may have figured that out.
of course I always wonder how much lovely parting gifts play in "resignations" (if he is resigning), we may find out in a future form 990
and if I'm Muir I'm not happy that this leaked (well maybe he leaked it) and left him hanging in the wind.
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
No one likes a change agent. No one.
They don't like change agents because they represent an affront to the status quo that legacy employees helped create and maintain. It's very simple for people in a mediocre enterprise to hallucinate that they are achieving above and beyond, even when empiric evidence -- like cratering attendance and football records -- are blindingly obvious to everyone. The legacy employees and other stakeholders committed to the prior means and methods will die on the hill to preserve the status quo.
The legacies don't like change agents because they force people out of their comfort zones. 25 year olds don't like it, 45 year olds hate that. And it's been my experience that they will resist, often overtly, always passively. They struggle to keep things the same, particularly among those who had success at the outset then faced less and less success as the years wear on.
Sometimes the rot is too deep and overwhelms the change agent. I've presided over four departmental rebuilds. I don't regret anything about three of the four, and those three have all succeeded wildly after I departed with my handpicked #2 in place.
One I deeply regret. I reported to the deputy CEO who told me "if I were you, I'd fire all of them." Which I didn't have a problem with per se, but then she added restrictions to the hiring pool which made it impossible as an alternative. So I kept the reclamation projects on as I built the program. We ended up the fastest growing firm of the 100 firms in our cohort. As soon as I left, their annual growth cut in half, then the next year cut in half again. This past year, their growth was 1/12th of my average growth in the four years that I was there. The same mediocrity who was there when I arrived is still there -- only now he's in charge.
And so it goes. Will Andrew Luck deliver a better result than the last four years? Hard to say. But I know it would be difficult to be worse. His Stanford teams were extraordinary, so he has a knowledge base, and my guess is that he has a vision. I didn't ever get the sense that Muir had a vision other than worse/cheaper/fewer sports.
They don't like change agents because they represent an affront to the status quo that legacy employees helped create and maintain. It's very simple for people in a mediocre enterprise to hallucinate that they are achieving above and beyond, even when empiric evidence -- like cratering attendance and football records -- are blindingly obvious to everyone. The legacy employees and other stakeholders committed to the prior means and methods will die on the hill to preserve the status quo.
The legacies don't like change agents because they force people out of their comfort zones. 25 year olds don't like it, 45 year olds hate that. And it's been my experience that they will resist, often overtly, always passively. They struggle to keep things the same, particularly among those who had success at the outset then faced less and less success as the years wear on.
Sometimes the rot is too deep and overwhelms the change agent. I've presided over four departmental rebuilds. I don't regret anything about three of the four, and those three have all succeeded wildly after I departed with my handpicked #2 in place.
One I deeply regret. I reported to the deputy CEO who told me "if I were you, I'd fire all of them." Which I didn't have a problem with per se, but then she added restrictions to the hiring pool which made it impossible as an alternative. So I kept the reclamation projects on as I built the program. We ended up the fastest growing firm of the 100 firms in our cohort. As soon as I left, their annual growth cut in half, then the next year cut in half again. This past year, their growth was 1/12th of my average growth in the four years that I was there. The same mediocrity who was there when I arrived is still there -- only now he's in charge.
And so it goes. Will Andrew Luck deliver a better result than the last four years? Hard to say. But I know it would be difficult to be worse. His Stanford teams were extraordinary, so he has a knowledge base, and my guess is that he has a vision. I didn't ever get the sense that Muir had a vision other than worse/cheaper/fewer sports.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
No one likes a change agent. No one.
They don't like change agents because they represent an affront to the status quo that legacy employees helped create and maintain. It's very simple for people in a mediocre enterprise to hallucinate that they are achieving above and beyond, even when empiric evidence -- like cratering attendance and football records -- are blindingly obvious to everyone. The legacy employees and other stakeholders committed to the prior means and methods will die on the hill to preserve the status quo.
The legacies don't like change agents because they force people out of their comfort zones. 25 year olds don't like it, 45 year olds hate that. And it's been my experience that they will resist, often overtly, always passively. They struggle to keep things the same, particularly among those who had success at the outset then faced less and less success as the years wear on.
Sometimes the rot is too deep and overwhelms the change agent. I've presided over four departmental rebuilds. I don't regret anything about three of the four, and those three have all succeeded wildly after I departed with my handpicked #2 in place.
One I deeply regret. I reported to the deputy CEO who told me "if I were you, I'd fire all of them." Which I didn't have a problem with per se, but then she added restrictions to the hiring pool which made it impossible as an alternative. So I kept the reclamation projects on as I built the program. We ended up the fastest growing firm of the 100 firms in our cohort. As soon as I left, their annual growth cut in half, then the next year cut in half again. This past year, their growth was 1/12th of my average growth in the four years that I was there. The same mediocrity who was there when I arrived is still there -- only now he's in charge.
And so it goes. Will Andrew Luck deliver a better result than the last four years? Hard to say. But I know it would be difficult to be worse. His Stanford teams were extraordinary, so he has a knowledge base, and my guess is that he has a vision. I didn't ever get the sense that Muir had a vision other than worse/cheaper/fewer sports.
They don't like change agents because they represent an affront to the status quo that legacy employees helped create and maintain. It's very simple for people in a mediocre enterprise to hallucinate that they are achieving above and beyond, even when empiric evidence -- like cratering attendance and football records -- are blindingly obvious to everyone. The legacy employees and other stakeholders committed to the prior means and methods will die on the hill to preserve the status quo.
The legacies don't like change agents because they force people out of their comfort zones. 25 year olds don't like it, 45 year olds hate that. And it's been my experience that they will resist, often overtly, always passively. They struggle to keep things the same, particularly among those who had success at the outset then faced less and less success as the years wear on.
Sometimes the rot is too deep and overwhelms the change agent. I've presided over four departmental rebuilds. I don't regret anything about three of the four, and those three have all succeeded wildly after I departed with my handpicked #2 in place.
One I deeply regret. I reported to the deputy CEO who told me "if I were you, I'd fire all of them." Which I didn't have a problem with per se, but then she added restrictions to the hiring pool which made it impossible as an alternative. So I kept the reclamation projects on as I built the program. We ended up the fastest growing firm of the 100 firms in our cohort. As soon as I left, their annual growth cut in half, then the next year cut in half again. This past year, their growth was 1/12th of my average growth in the four years that I was there. The same mediocrity who was there when I arrived is still there -- only now he's in charge.
And so it goes. Will Andrew Luck deliver a better result than the last four years? Hard to say. But I know it would be difficult to be worse. His Stanford teams were extraordinary, so he has a knowledge base, and my guess is that he has a vision. I didn't ever get the sense that Muir had a vision other than worse/cheaper/fewer sports.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
02-25-2025, 09:28 AM
Mick, as I read your post, I assumed you were going to say that Muir was the unpopular change agent for choosing to move to the ACC. I’m so thankful that’s not what you were saying because Muir was the mediocrity that preceded you at your 4th rebuild.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
Mick, as I read your post, I assumed you were going to say that Muir was the unpopular change agent for choosing to move to the ACC. I’m so thankful that’s not what you were saying because Muir was the mediocrity that preceded you at your 4th rebuild.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
02-25-2025, 10:36 AM
(02-25-2025, 09:28 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: Mick, as I read your post, I assumed you were going to say that Muir was the unpopular change agent for choosing to move to the ACC. I’m so thankful that’s not what you were saying because Muir was the mediocrity that preceded you at your 4th rebuild.
I've never thought of Muir as a change agent. He held onto downward-trending coaches in critical roles for way too long. A change agent would have let the football and MBB coaches long before they caused the damage that they did. And I've never supported the move to the ACC, though I recognize both its necessity and inevitability. Stanford was never going to be an independent, and it would support non-revenue sports (except for those that non-change-agent-Muir would try to strangle in their sleep). So they dithered and accepted what was left. A change agent would have allied Stanford with a better conference at a better negotiated price.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(02-25-2025, 09:28 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: Mick, as I read your post, I assumed you were going to say that Muir was the unpopular change agent for choosing to move to the ACC. I’m so thankful that’s not what you were saying because Muir was the mediocrity that preceded you at your 4th rebuild.
I've never thought of Muir as a change agent. He held onto downward-trending coaches in critical roles for way too long. A change agent would have let the football and MBB coaches long before they caused the damage that they did. And I've never supported the move to the ACC, though I recognize both its necessity and inevitability. Stanford was never going to be an independent, and it would support non-revenue sports (except for those that non-change-agent-Muir would try to strangle in their sleep). So they dithered and accepted what was left. A change agent would have allied Stanford with a better conference at a better negotiated price.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
02-25-2025, 11:01 AM
If and when the University makes an announcement, it will include Muir's accomplishments while at Stanford. The number of national championships, conference championships, the Director's Cup results, the APR rankings, the consecutive years NC streak, Olympic medals won. Things that can be measured. By those numbers, Muir has been a very successful AD.
But I will remember Bernard Muir as someone who presided over dark times at Stanford Athletics. When he could have been a guiding light, he instead preferred darkness. The 3 issues that stand out to me are 1) John Rittman's ouster; 2) Varsity Blues scandal; 3) the debacle of the 11 sports that were cut and reinstated. I won't rehash them here because they we have discussed them at length. Each of them a serious situation with significant consequences for the affected parties. Muir said virtually nothing about any of them. He would not answer questions publicly or privately. That's poor leadership. I don't think he was hiding anything nefarious. I think that's just how he prefers to operate. In general, Muir seemed to shy away from anything that could be confrontation. See also the years of basketball mediocrity and the years of football decline and the listless fan support for both with little action taken by Muir. As I saw this more and more, it certainly caused me as a fan and a donor to lose trust and confidence in the AD leadership.
Whomever replaces him will be working from a deep hole that seems to get deeper every day. The department has a significant operating gap that it only balances with a large subsidy from the university. There is no energy around athletics on campus or in the community. Stanford is aligned with the ACC which it needed to do to be able to be nationally competitive in sports (or at least to attempt to be nationally competitive). But playing cross-country games and matches seems to result in teams being less competitive. And all of the other external forces of college athletics are working against Stanford.
But I take confidence in the future of Stanford Athletics because of Jon Levin. He seems to have a clear-eyed understanding of other issues on campus. I believe that he is taking an active role in Athletics too. I can see his impact on Muir's resignation, maybe directly or indirectly. For now, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Levin and Jenny Martinez that they will make a smart hire to replace Muir.
I will thank Bernard Muir for his outstanding ability to schmooze mega-wealthy donors and parents to host the Coach's Roadshow in LA at some amazing locations. Those have been fantastic events.
But I will remember Bernard Muir as someone who presided over dark times at Stanford Athletics. When he could have been a guiding light, he instead preferred darkness. The 3 issues that stand out to me are 1) John Rittman's ouster; 2) Varsity Blues scandal; 3) the debacle of the 11 sports that were cut and reinstated. I won't rehash them here because they we have discussed them at length. Each of them a serious situation with significant consequences for the affected parties. Muir said virtually nothing about any of them. He would not answer questions publicly or privately. That's poor leadership. I don't think he was hiding anything nefarious. I think that's just how he prefers to operate. In general, Muir seemed to shy away from anything that could be confrontation. See also the years of basketball mediocrity and the years of football decline and the listless fan support for both with little action taken by Muir. As I saw this more and more, it certainly caused me as a fan and a donor to lose trust and confidence in the AD leadership.
Whomever replaces him will be working from a deep hole that seems to get deeper every day. The department has a significant operating gap that it only balances with a large subsidy from the university. There is no energy around athletics on campus or in the community. Stanford is aligned with the ACC which it needed to do to be able to be nationally competitive in sports (or at least to attempt to be nationally competitive). But playing cross-country games and matches seems to result in teams being less competitive. And all of the other external forces of college athletics are working against Stanford.
But I take confidence in the future of Stanford Athletics because of Jon Levin. He seems to have a clear-eyed understanding of other issues on campus. I believe that he is taking an active role in Athletics too. I can see his impact on Muir's resignation, maybe directly or indirectly. For now, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Levin and Jenny Martinez that they will make a smart hire to replace Muir.
I will thank Bernard Muir for his outstanding ability to schmooze mega-wealthy donors and parents to host the Coach's Roadshow in LA at some amazing locations. Those have been fantastic events.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
If and when the University makes an announcement, it will include Muir's accomplishments while at Stanford. The number of national championships, conference championships, the Director's Cup results, the APR rankings, the consecutive years NC streak, Olympic medals won. Things that can be measured. By those numbers, Muir has been a very successful AD.
But I will remember Bernard Muir as someone who presided over dark times at Stanford Athletics. When he could have been a guiding light, he instead preferred darkness. The 3 issues that stand out to me are 1) John Rittman's ouster; 2) Varsity Blues scandal; 3) the debacle of the 11 sports that were cut and reinstated. I won't rehash them here because they we have discussed them at length. Each of them a serious situation with significant consequences for the affected parties. Muir said virtually nothing about any of them. He would not answer questions publicly or privately. That's poor leadership. I don't think he was hiding anything nefarious. I think that's just how he prefers to operate. In general, Muir seemed to shy away from anything that could be confrontation. See also the years of basketball mediocrity and the years of football decline and the listless fan support for both with little action taken by Muir. As I saw this more and more, it certainly caused me as a fan and a donor to lose trust and confidence in the AD leadership.
Whomever replaces him will be working from a deep hole that seems to get deeper every day. The department has a significant operating gap that it only balances with a large subsidy from the university. There is no energy around athletics on campus or in the community. Stanford is aligned with the ACC which it needed to do to be able to be nationally competitive in sports (or at least to attempt to be nationally competitive). But playing cross-country games and matches seems to result in teams being less competitive. And all of the other external forces of college athletics are working against Stanford.
But I take confidence in the future of Stanford Athletics because of Jon Levin. He seems to have a clear-eyed understanding of other issues on campus. I believe that he is taking an active role in Athletics too. I can see his impact on Muir's resignation, maybe directly or indirectly. For now, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Levin and Jenny Martinez that they will make a smart hire to replace Muir.
I will thank Bernard Muir for his outstanding ability to schmooze mega-wealthy donors and parents to host the Coach's Roadshow in LA at some amazing locations. Those have been fantastic events.
But I will remember Bernard Muir as someone who presided over dark times at Stanford Athletics. When he could have been a guiding light, he instead preferred darkness. The 3 issues that stand out to me are 1) John Rittman's ouster; 2) Varsity Blues scandal; 3) the debacle of the 11 sports that were cut and reinstated. I won't rehash them here because they we have discussed them at length. Each of them a serious situation with significant consequences for the affected parties. Muir said virtually nothing about any of them. He would not answer questions publicly or privately. That's poor leadership. I don't think he was hiding anything nefarious. I think that's just how he prefers to operate. In general, Muir seemed to shy away from anything that could be confrontation. See also the years of basketball mediocrity and the years of football decline and the listless fan support for both with little action taken by Muir. As I saw this more and more, it certainly caused me as a fan and a donor to lose trust and confidence in the AD leadership.
Whomever replaces him will be working from a deep hole that seems to get deeper every day. The department has a significant operating gap that it only balances with a large subsidy from the university. There is no energy around athletics on campus or in the community. Stanford is aligned with the ACC which it needed to do to be able to be nationally competitive in sports (or at least to attempt to be nationally competitive). But playing cross-country games and matches seems to result in teams being less competitive. And all of the other external forces of college athletics are working against Stanford.
But I take confidence in the future of Stanford Athletics because of Jon Levin. He seems to have a clear-eyed understanding of other issues on campus. I believe that he is taking an active role in Athletics too. I can see his impact on Muir's resignation, maybe directly or indirectly. For now, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Levin and Jenny Martinez that they will make a smart hire to replace Muir.
I will thank Bernard Muir for his outstanding ability to schmooze mega-wealthy donors and parents to host the Coach's Roadshow in LA at some amazing locations. Those have been fantastic events.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
02-25-2025, 11:58 AM
(02-25-2025, 11:01 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: If and when the University makes an announcement, it will include Muir's accomplishments while at Stanford. The number of national championships, conference championships, the Director's Cup results, the APR rankings, the consecutive years NC streak, Olympic medals won. Things that can be measured. By those numbers, Muir has been a very successful AD.
But I will remember Bernard Muir as someone who presided over dark times at Stanford Athletics. When he could have been a guiding light, he instead preferred darkness. The 3 issues that stand out to me are 1) John Rittman's ouster; 2) Varsity Blues scandal; 3) the debacle of the 11 sports that were cut and reinstated. I won't rehash them here because they we have discussed them at length. Each of them a serious situation with significant consequences for the affected parties. Muir said virtually nothing about any of them. He would not answer questions publicly or privately. That's poor leadership. I don't think he was hiding anything nefarious. I think that's just how he prefers to operate. In general, Muir seemed to shy away from anything that could be confrontation. See also the years of basketball mediocrity and the years of football decline and the listless fan support for both with little action taken by Muir. As I saw this more and more, it certainly caused me as a fan and a donor to lose trust and confidence in the AD leadership.
Whomever replaces him will be working from a deep hole that seems to get deeper every day. The department has a significant operating gap that it only balances with a large subsidy from the university. There is no energy around athletics on campus or in the community. Stanford is aligned with the ACC which it needed to do to be able to be nationally competitive in sports (or at least to attempt to be nationally competitive). But playing cross-country games and matches seems to result in teams being less competitive. And all of the other external forces of college athletics are working against Stanford.
But I take confidence in the future of Stanford Athletics because of Jon Levin. He seems to have a clear-eyed understanding of other issues on campus. I believe that he is taking an active role in Athletics too. I can see his impact on Muir's resignation, maybe directly or indirectly. For now, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Levin and Jenny Martinez that they will make a smart hire to replace Muir.
I will thank Bernard Muir for his outstanding ability to schmooze mega-wealthy donors and parents to host the Coach's Roadshow in LA at some amazing locations. Those have been fantastic events.
In reading your first paragraph, I see a lot of parallels between Muir and Shaw. Both inherited high performing programs, had high levels of success early on in their tenures, then oversaw a long slow decline from holding onto overmatched/underperforming coaches and unwillingness to adapt to changing times. We lost the directors' cup twice(!) during Muir's tenure, breaking a nearly 30 year long winning streak, and the national championships are coming from an increasingly small number of teams. I wouldn't be surprised (but definitely disappointed) if the natty streak ends this year or next.
(02-25-2025, 11:01 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: If and when the University makes an announcement, it will include Muir's accomplishments while at Stanford. The number of national championships, conference championships, the Director's Cup results, the APR rankings, the consecutive years NC streak, Olympic medals won. Things that can be measured. By those numbers, Muir has been a very successful AD.
But I will remember Bernard Muir as someone who presided over dark times at Stanford Athletics. When he could have been a guiding light, he instead preferred darkness. The 3 issues that stand out to me are 1) John Rittman's ouster; 2) Varsity Blues scandal; 3) the debacle of the 11 sports that were cut and reinstated. I won't rehash them here because they we have discussed them at length. Each of them a serious situation with significant consequences for the affected parties. Muir said virtually nothing about any of them. He would not answer questions publicly or privately. That's poor leadership. I don't think he was hiding anything nefarious. I think that's just how he prefers to operate. In general, Muir seemed to shy away from anything that could be confrontation. See also the years of basketball mediocrity and the years of football decline and the listless fan support for both with little action taken by Muir. As I saw this more and more, it certainly caused me as a fan and a donor to lose trust and confidence in the AD leadership.
Whomever replaces him will be working from a deep hole that seems to get deeper every day. The department has a significant operating gap that it only balances with a large subsidy from the university. There is no energy around athletics on campus or in the community. Stanford is aligned with the ACC which it needed to do to be able to be nationally competitive in sports (or at least to attempt to be nationally competitive). But playing cross-country games and matches seems to result in teams being less competitive. And all of the other external forces of college athletics are working against Stanford.
But I take confidence in the future of Stanford Athletics because of Jon Levin. He seems to have a clear-eyed understanding of other issues on campus. I believe that he is taking an active role in Athletics too. I can see his impact on Muir's resignation, maybe directly or indirectly. For now, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Levin and Jenny Martinez that they will make a smart hire to replace Muir.
I will thank Bernard Muir for his outstanding ability to schmooze mega-wealthy donors and parents to host the Coach's Roadshow in LA at some amazing locations. Those have been fantastic events.
In reading your first paragraph, I see a lot of parallels between Muir and Shaw. Both inherited high performing programs, had high levels of success early on in their tenures, then oversaw a long slow decline from holding onto overmatched/underperforming coaches and unwillingness to adapt to changing times. We lost the directors' cup twice(!) during Muir's tenure, breaking a nearly 30 year long winning streak, and the national championships are coming from an increasingly small number of teams. I wouldn't be surprised (but definitely disappointed) if the natty streak ends this year or next.
(02-25-2025, 11:58 AM)Jamesy Wrote:(02-25-2025, 11:01 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: If and when the University makes an announcement, it will include Muir's accomplishments while at Stanford. The number of national championships, conference championships, the Director's Cup results, the APR rankings, the consecutive years NC streak, Olympic medals won. Things that can be measured. By those numbers, Muir has been a very successful AD.
But I will remember Bernard Muir as someone who presided over dark times at Stanford Athletics. When he could have been a guiding light, he instead preferred darkness. The 3 issues that stand out to me are 1) John Rittman's ouster; 2) Varsity Blues scandal; 3) the debacle of the 11 sports that were cut and reinstated. I won't rehash them here because they we have discussed them at length. Each of them a serious situation with significant consequences for the affected parties. Muir said virtually nothing about any of them. He would not answer questions publicly or privately. That's poor leadership. I don't think he was hiding anything nefarious. I think that's just how he prefers to operate. In general, Muir seemed to shy away from anything that could be confrontation. See also the years of basketball mediocrity and the years of football decline and the listless fan support for both with little action taken by Muir. As I saw this more and more, it certainly caused me as a fan and a donor to lose trust and confidence in the AD leadership.
Whomever replaces him will be working from a deep hole that seems to get deeper every day. The department has a significant operating gap that it only balances with a large subsidy from the university. There is no energy around athletics on campus or in the community. Stanford is aligned with the ACC which it needed to do to be able to be nationally competitive in sports (or at least to attempt to be nationally competitive). But playing cross-country games and matches seems to result in teams being less competitive. And all of the other external forces of college athletics are working against Stanford.
But I take confidence in the future of Stanford Athletics because of Jon Levin. He seems to have a clear-eyed understanding of other issues on campus. I believe that he is taking an active role in Athletics too. I can see his impact on Muir's resignation, maybe directly or indirectly. For now, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Levin and Jenny Martinez that they will make a smart hire to replace Muir.
I will thank Bernard Muir for his outstanding ability to schmooze mega-wealthy donors and parents to host the Coach's Roadshow in LA at some amazing locations. Those have been fantastic events.
In reading your first paragraph, I see a lot of parallels between Muir and Shaw. Both inherited high performing programs, had high levels of success early on in their tenures, then oversaw a long slow decline from holding onto overmatched/underperforming coaches and unwillingness to adapt to changing times. We lost the directors' cup twice(!) during Muir's tenure, breaking a nearly 30 year long winning streak, and the national championships are coming from an increasingly small number of teams. I wouldn't be surprised (but definitely disappointed) if the natty streak ends this year or next.
Glad to hear he's moving on - we need someone with more enthusiasm (dare I say it, EUTM!), charisma, and anticipation at skating to where the puck is going rather than where it's at.
That said, we had three years from 2008-2010 when we only won two national championships per season (before Muir's time), and we only won in 2013-14. So I do think we have waxed and waned throughout the year - after all, we tied (ourselves) for the most national championships in a single season (6) in 2018-19, which was right during the peak of Muir's tenure, so I'm not sure I see a discernible difference in overall athletic accomplishments, notwithstanding that I do agree revenue sports have slipped dramatically during his tenure.
(02-25-2025, 11:58 AM)Jamesy Wrote:(02-25-2025, 11:01 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: If and when the University makes an announcement, it will include Muir's accomplishments while at Stanford. The number of national championships, conference championships, the Director's Cup results, the APR rankings, the consecutive years NC streak, Olympic medals won. Things that can be measured. By those numbers, Muir has been a very successful AD.
But I will remember Bernard Muir as someone who presided over dark times at Stanford Athletics. When he could have been a guiding light, he instead preferred darkness. The 3 issues that stand out to me are 1) John Rittman's ouster; 2) Varsity Blues scandal; 3) the debacle of the 11 sports that were cut and reinstated. I won't rehash them here because they we have discussed them at length. Each of them a serious situation with significant consequences for the affected parties. Muir said virtually nothing about any of them. He would not answer questions publicly or privately. That's poor leadership. I don't think he was hiding anything nefarious. I think that's just how he prefers to operate. In general, Muir seemed to shy away from anything that could be confrontation. See also the years of basketball mediocrity and the years of football decline and the listless fan support for both with little action taken by Muir. As I saw this more and more, it certainly caused me as a fan and a donor to lose trust and confidence in the AD leadership.
Whomever replaces him will be working from a deep hole that seems to get deeper every day. The department has a significant operating gap that it only balances with a large subsidy from the university. There is no energy around athletics on campus or in the community. Stanford is aligned with the ACC which it needed to do to be able to be nationally competitive in sports (or at least to attempt to be nationally competitive). But playing cross-country games and matches seems to result in teams being less competitive. And all of the other external forces of college athletics are working against Stanford.
But I take confidence in the future of Stanford Athletics because of Jon Levin. He seems to have a clear-eyed understanding of other issues on campus. I believe that he is taking an active role in Athletics too. I can see his impact on Muir's resignation, maybe directly or indirectly. For now, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Levin and Jenny Martinez that they will make a smart hire to replace Muir.
I will thank Bernard Muir for his outstanding ability to schmooze mega-wealthy donors and parents to host the Coach's Roadshow in LA at some amazing locations. Those have been fantastic events.
In reading your first paragraph, I see a lot of parallels between Muir and Shaw. Both inherited high performing programs, had high levels of success early on in their tenures, then oversaw a long slow decline from holding onto overmatched/underperforming coaches and unwillingness to adapt to changing times. We lost the directors' cup twice(!) during Muir's tenure, breaking a nearly 30 year long winning streak, and the national championships are coming from an increasingly small number of teams. I wouldn't be surprised (but definitely disappointed) if the natty streak ends this year or next.
Glad to hear he's moving on - we need someone with more enthusiasm (dare I say it, EUTM!), charisma, and anticipation at skating to where the puck is going rather than where it's at.
That said, we had three years from 2008-2010 when we only won two national championships per season (before Muir's time), and we only won in 2013-14. So I do think we have waxed and waned throughout the year - after all, we tied (ourselves) for the most national championships in a single season (6) in 2018-19, which was right during the peak of Muir's tenure, so I'm not sure I see a discernible difference in overall athletic accomplishments, notwithstanding that I do agree revenue sports have slipped dramatically during his tenure.
02-25-2025, 12:48 PM
(02-25-2025, 05:04 AM)M T Wrote: I'd like to think he's being forced out in part for agreeing to a 10-year ACC commitment to poorer records for the teams because of travel. Someone up there may have figured that out.
Does anybody think Muir had any other choice that would have been better or that he really had much to do with the choice, given the involvement of Condi?
(02-25-2025, 05:04 AM)M T Wrote: I'd like to think he's being forced out in part for agreeing to a 10-year ACC commitment to poorer records for the teams because of travel. Someone up there may have figured that out.
Does anybody think Muir had any other choice that would have been better or that he really had much to do with the choice, given the involvement of Condi?
02-25-2025, 12:51 PM
To be fair there are some good things happening right now in women's sports:
Softball team beat #1 Texas.
Beach Volleyball team beat #1 USC.
Women's Lacross team beat #7 Virginia. First time Lacross has ever beaten Virginia.
Women's golf recently won a tournament by about 38 stokes. The freshman recruits and next year's recruits are off the chart good.
Women's volleyball team is doing exceptionally well in recruiting for the next two years.
Softball team beat #1 Texas.
Beach Volleyball team beat #1 USC.
Women's Lacross team beat #7 Virginia. First time Lacross has ever beaten Virginia.
Women's golf recently won a tournament by about 38 stokes. The freshman recruits and next year's recruits are off the chart good.
Women's volleyball team is doing exceptionally well in recruiting for the next two years.
To be fair there are some good things happening right now in women's sports:
Softball team beat #1 Texas.
Beach Volleyball team beat #1 USC.
Women's Lacross team beat #7 Virginia. First time Lacross has ever beaten Virginia.
Women's golf recently won a tournament by about 38 stokes. The freshman recruits and next year's recruits are off the chart good.
Women's volleyball team is doing exceptionally well in recruiting for the next two years.
Softball team beat #1 Texas.
Beach Volleyball team beat #1 USC.
Women's Lacross team beat #7 Virginia. First time Lacross has ever beaten Virginia.
Women's golf recently won a tournament by about 38 stokes. The freshman recruits and next year's recruits are off the chart good.
Women's volleyball team is doing exceptionally well in recruiting for the next two years.
02-25-2025, 12:54 PM
(02-24-2025, 09:28 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(02-24-2025, 06:30 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(02-24-2025, 06:13 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Saving my thoughts for when we figure out who the new director will be. Athletic Director is a tough job, and change for change's sake is not always a winning strategy.So you're saying we should have stuck with Muir?
I read his comment as saying that evaluating the (forced?) resignation requires knowing both what has left and what it is being replaced with. I agree with most that Muir should have been replaced long ago (for me, the last straw was when we suffered our first major NCAA sanctions). But just because I don't think Muir was very good doesn't mean that the next AD will automatically be better. I think when Muir finally got around to firing Dawkins, most people were pretty excited (and many felt it was overdue). It turns out that the replacement (Haase) was no better.
BC
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I disagree with evaluating the result of a termination requires knowing both what has left and what is the replacement. When making decisions, one doesn't have the benefit of future hindsight. The question really should be two fold: first is the person a net positive or a net negative to the organization; second, if a net positive or even net neutral, what is the probability of finding replacement who can improve the status quo.
If the first, you cut immediately (or as soon as legally possible in this day and age). If the second, you make the decision on the likelihood of improving. In Muir's case, you mentioned the NCAA sanctions, a brobdingnagian negative. The state of the basketball and football programs, brobdingnagian negatives. The Pac-12 debacle. The move to the ACC. His lack of hiring prowess. All negatives. He needed to go after any of those major negatives to the University. Levin's predecessor seems to have the same concerns the poster appears to hold to which I responded: "but what if the replacement I hire is worse?" He never made the change.
Letting people go is tough. Leaders make hard decisions and take action. Glad Levin did. I don't know Levin, but I trust that he will find somebody who is a net positive over Muir.
Finally, waiting to evaluate his "resignation" until his replacement is named is not a luxury in the real world, but I guess it is the second-guessing world of sports boards.
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(02-24-2025, 09:28 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(02-24-2025, 06:30 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(02-24-2025, 06:13 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Saving my thoughts for when we figure out who the new director will be. Athletic Director is a tough job, and change for change's sake is not always a winning strategy.So you're saying we should have stuck with Muir?
I read his comment as saying that evaluating the (forced?) resignation requires knowing both what has left and what it is being replaced with. I agree with most that Muir should have been replaced long ago (for me, the last straw was when we suffered our first major NCAA sanctions). But just because I don't think Muir was very good doesn't mean that the next AD will automatically be better. I think when Muir finally got around to firing Dawkins, most people were pretty excited (and many felt it was overdue). It turns out that the replacement (Haase) was no better.
BC
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I disagree with evaluating the result of a termination requires knowing both what has left and what is the replacement. When making decisions, one doesn't have the benefit of future hindsight. The question really should be two fold: first is the person a net positive or a net negative to the organization; second, if a net positive or even net neutral, what is the probability of finding replacement who can improve the status quo.
If the first, you cut immediately (or as soon as legally possible in this day and age). If the second, you make the decision on the likelihood of improving. In Muir's case, you mentioned the NCAA sanctions, a brobdingnagian negative. The state of the basketball and football programs, brobdingnagian negatives. The Pac-12 debacle. The move to the ACC. His lack of hiring prowess. All negatives. He needed to go after any of those major negatives to the University. Levin's predecessor seems to have the same concerns the poster appears to hold to which I responded: "but what if the replacement I hire is worse?" He never made the change.
Letting people go is tough. Leaders make hard decisions and take action. Glad Levin did. I don't know Levin, but I trust that he will find somebody who is a net positive over Muir.
Finally, waiting to evaluate his "resignation" until his replacement is named is not a luxury in the real world, but I guess it is the second-guessing world of sports boards.
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
02-25-2025, 12:58 PM
(02-25-2025, 12:48 PM)chrisk Wrote:(02-25-2025, 05:04 AM)M T Wrote: I'd like to think he's being forced out in part for agreeing to a 10-year ACC commitment to poorer records for the teams because of travel. Someone up there may have figured that out.
Does anybody think Muir had any other choice that would have been better or that he really had much to do with the choice, given the involvement of Condi?
Nope. To say some other AD would have gotten Stanford into the B1G or the SEC, give me a break. Or to say Stanford was somehow going to create a power conference on the West Coast, you would have to be delusional. Stanford was lucky to get into a power 4 conference.
(02-25-2025, 12:48 PM)chrisk Wrote:(02-25-2025, 05:04 AM)M T Wrote: I'd like to think he's being forced out in part for agreeing to a 10-year ACC commitment to poorer records for the teams because of travel. Someone up there may have figured that out.
Does anybody think Muir had any other choice that would have been better or that he really had much to do with the choice, given the involvement of Condi?
Nope. To say some other AD would have gotten Stanford into the B1G or the SEC, give me a break. Or to say Stanford was somehow going to create a power conference on the West Coast, you would have to be delusional. Stanford was lucky to get into a power 4 conference.
02-25-2025, 01:00 PM
For the modern Power 5 4 athletic director, football is all that matters. That was his failure, not Director Cup slippage, or even showing up prominently on Netflix in an admission scandal documentary, which was a fireable offense for cause as far as my opinion goes. Levin went double-barrel passive aggressive by hiring Luck and placing him above both Muir and Taylor. One down, maybe? Or did Muir just say 'screw it, I quit' all on his own?
I'm guilty of the passive aggressive moves myself, out a fear of legal action, or whatever, but have learned it is best to honestly move on transparently no matter how uncomfortable or how much security you might need in the room where it happens. But, Levin and Luck are adults. They need to start winning again or nothing will matter including figuring out jet lag.
Besides, he was at Stanford for a dozen years, so the office is probably due for a churn. Muir leaving, however, does not feel like "change for change's sake" to me. It feels more like change or we are screwed. Personally, I've never understood the "but what if the replacement is worse" question. Then, nothing will likely change. If the replacement is worse, get someone else. That is allowed.
I'm guilty of the passive aggressive moves myself, out a fear of legal action, or whatever, but have learned it is best to honestly move on transparently no matter how uncomfortable or how much security you might need in the room where it happens. But, Levin and Luck are adults. They need to start winning again or nothing will matter including figuring out jet lag.
Besides, he was at Stanford for a dozen years, so the office is probably due for a churn. Muir leaving, however, does not feel like "change for change's sake" to me. It feels more like change or we are screwed. Personally, I've never understood the "but what if the replacement is worse" question. Then, nothing will likely change. If the replacement is worse, get someone else. That is allowed.
For the modern Power 5 4 athletic director, football is all that matters. That was his failure, not Director Cup slippage, or even showing up prominently on Netflix in an admission scandal documentary, which was a fireable offense for cause as far as my opinion goes. Levin went double-barrel passive aggressive by hiring Luck and placing him above both Muir and Taylor. One down, maybe? Or did Muir just say 'screw it, I quit' all on his own?
I'm guilty of the passive aggressive moves myself, out a fear of legal action, or whatever, but have learned it is best to honestly move on transparently no matter how uncomfortable or how much security you might need in the room where it happens. But, Levin and Luck are adults. They need to start winning again or nothing will matter including figuring out jet lag.
Besides, he was at Stanford for a dozen years, so the office is probably due for a churn. Muir leaving, however, does not feel like "change for change's sake" to me. It feels more like change or we are screwed. Personally, I've never understood the "but what if the replacement is worse" question. Then, nothing will likely change. If the replacement is worse, get someone else. That is allowed.
I'm guilty of the passive aggressive moves myself, out a fear of legal action, or whatever, but have learned it is best to honestly move on transparently no matter how uncomfortable or how much security you might need in the room where it happens. But, Levin and Luck are adults. They need to start winning again or nothing will matter including figuring out jet lag.
Besides, he was at Stanford for a dozen years, so the office is probably due for a churn. Muir leaving, however, does not feel like "change for change's sake" to me. It feels more like change or we are screwed. Personally, I've never understood the "but what if the replacement is worse" question. Then, nothing will likely change. If the replacement is worse, get someone else. That is allowed.
02-25-2025, 01:00 PM
(02-25-2025, 12:51 PM)paloalto Wrote: To be fair there are some good things happening right now in women's sports:
Softball team beat #1 Texas.
Beach Volleyball team beat #1 USC.
Women's Lacross team beat #7 Virginia. First time Lacross has ever beaten Virginia.
Women's golf recently won a tournament by about 38 stokes. The freshman recruits and next year's recruits are off the chart good.
Women's volleyball team is doing exceptionally well in recruiting for the next two years.
What? No mention of women's water polo? Currently #1, and handling #2 U$C 10-6 and crushing #3 UCLA 14-4 last weekend!
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(02-25-2025, 12:51 PM)paloalto Wrote: To be fair there are some good things happening right now in women's sports:
Softball team beat #1 Texas.
Beach Volleyball team beat #1 USC.
Women's Lacross team beat #7 Virginia. First time Lacross has ever beaten Virginia.
Women's golf recently won a tournament by about 38 stokes. The freshman recruits and next year's recruits are off the chart good.
Women's volleyball team is doing exceptionally well in recruiting for the next two years.
What? No mention of women's water polo? Currently #1, and handling #2 U$C 10-6 and crushing #3 UCLA 14-4 last weekend!
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(02-25-2025, 01:00 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: For the modern Power 5 4 athletic director, football is all that matters. That was his failure, not Director Cup slippage, or even showing up prominently on Netflix in an admission scandal documentary, which was a fireable offense for cause as far as my opinion goes. Levin went double-barrel passive aggressive by hiring Luck and placing him above both Muir and Taylor. One down, maybe? Or did Muir just say 'screw it, I quit' all on his own?
I'm guilty of the passive aggressive moves myself, out a fear of legal action, or whatever, but have learned it is best to honestly move on transparently no matter how uncomfortable or how much security you might need in the room where it happens. But, Levin and Luck are adults. They need to start winning again or nothing will matter including figuring out jet lag.
Besides, he was at Stanford for a dozen years, so the office is probably due for a churn. Muir leaving, however, does not feel like "change for change's sake" to me. It feels more like change or we are screwed. Personally, I've never understood the "but what if the replacement is worse" question. Then, nothing will likely change. If the replacement is worse, get someone else. That is allowed.
Roger that! The "but what if the replacement is worse" is a total loser-attitude. Hell, just look at the Warriors recent acquisition of Jimmy Butler. There was a lot of hand-wringing about the trade among Warriors fans and the press but with it, it now looks like the Warriors have a chance to have a decent playoff run. Had they had the "but what if the replacement is worse" attitude, they would have been virtually guaranteed of going nowhere!
(This post was last modified: 02-25-2025, 01:10 PM by Brickcity.)
(02-25-2025, 01:00 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: For the modern Power 5 4 athletic director, football is all that matters. That was his failure, not Director Cup slippage, or even showing up prominently on Netflix in an admission scandal documentary, which was a fireable offense for cause as far as my opinion goes. Levin went double-barrel passive aggressive by hiring Luck and placing him above both Muir and Taylor. One down, maybe? Or did Muir just say 'screw it, I quit' all on his own?
I'm guilty of the passive aggressive moves myself, out a fear of legal action, or whatever, but have learned it is best to honestly move on transparently no matter how uncomfortable or how much security you might need in the room where it happens. But, Levin and Luck are adults. They need to start winning again or nothing will matter including figuring out jet lag.
Besides, he was at Stanford for a dozen years, so the office is probably due for a churn. Muir leaving, however, does not feel like "change for change's sake" to me. It feels more like change or we are screwed. Personally, I've never understood the "but what if the replacement is worse" question. Then, nothing will likely change. If the replacement is worse, get someone else. That is allowed.
Roger that! The "but what if the replacement is worse" is a total loser-attitude. Hell, just look at the Warriors recent acquisition of Jimmy Butler. There was a lot of hand-wringing about the trade among Warriors fans and the press but with it, it now looks like the Warriors have a chance to have a decent playoff run. Had they had the "but what if the replacement is worse" attitude, they would have been virtually guaranteed of going nowhere!
02-25-2025, 01:31 PM
(02-25-2025, 01:00 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: For the modern Power 5 4 athletic director, football is all that matters. That was his failure, not Director Cup slippage, or even showing up prominently on Netflix in an admission scandal documentary, which was a fireable offense for cause as far as my opinion goes. Levin went double-barrel passive aggressive by hiring Luck and placing him above both Muir and Taylor. One down, maybe? Or did Muir just say 'screw it, I quit' all on his own?
I'm guilty of the passive aggressive moves myself, out a fear of legal action, or whatever, but have learned it is best to honestly move on transparently no matter how uncomfortable or how much security you might need in the room where it happens. But, Levin and Luck are adults. They need to start winning again or nothing will matter including figuring out jet lag.
Besides, he was at Stanford for a dozen years, so the office is probably due for a churn. Muir leaving, however, does not feel like "change for change's sake" to me. It feels more like change or we are screwed. Personally, I've never understood the "but what if the replacement is worse" question. Then, nothing will likely change. If the replacement is worse, get someone else. That is allowed.
Bingo.
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(02-25-2025, 01:00 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: For the modern Power 5 4 athletic director, football is all that matters. That was his failure, not Director Cup slippage, or even showing up prominently on Netflix in an admission scandal documentary, which was a fireable offense for cause as far as my opinion goes. Levin went double-barrel passive aggressive by hiring Luck and placing him above both Muir and Taylor. One down, maybe? Or did Muir just say 'screw it, I quit' all on his own?
I'm guilty of the passive aggressive moves myself, out a fear of legal action, or whatever, but have learned it is best to honestly move on transparently no matter how uncomfortable or how much security you might need in the room where it happens. But, Levin and Luck are adults. They need to start winning again or nothing will matter including figuring out jet lag.
Besides, he was at Stanford for a dozen years, so the office is probably due for a churn. Muir leaving, however, does not feel like "change for change's sake" to me. It feels more like change or we are screwed. Personally, I've never understood the "but what if the replacement is worse" question. Then, nothing will likely change. If the replacement is worse, get someone else. That is allowed.
Bingo.
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
02-25-2025, 01:33 PM
(02-25-2025, 12:58 PM)paloalto Wrote:(02-25-2025, 12:48 PM)chrisk Wrote:(02-25-2025, 05:04 AM)M T Wrote: I'd like to think he's being forced out in part for agreeing to a 10-year ACC commitment to poorer records for the teams because of travel. Someone up there may have figured that out.
Does anybody think Muir had any other choice that would have been better or that he really had much to do with the choice, given the involvement of Condi?
Nope. To say some other AD would have gotten Stanford into the B1G or the SEC, give me a break. Or to say Stanford was somehow going to create a power conference on the West Coast, you would have to be delusional. Stanford was lucky to get into a power 4 conference.
Give me a break, and read the two lines you are replying to. Specifically, I was talking about a 10-year (apparently it was 12 years) commitment to stay in the ACC. They do this grand experiment with near-constant travel for their student-athletes and agree to run it for 3 generations of athletes. That plus the questionable future of the ACC. Even Ukraine might not agree to terms like that.
(02-25-2025, 12:58 PM)paloalto Wrote:(02-25-2025, 12:48 PM)chrisk Wrote:(02-25-2025, 05:04 AM)M T Wrote: I'd like to think he's being forced out in part for agreeing to a 10-year ACC commitment to poorer records for the teams because of travel. Someone up there may have figured that out.
Does anybody think Muir had any other choice that would have been better or that he really had much to do with the choice, given the involvement of Condi?
Nope. To say some other AD would have gotten Stanford into the B1G or the SEC, give me a break. Or to say Stanford was somehow going to create a power conference on the West Coast, you would have to be delusional. Stanford was lucky to get into a power 4 conference.
Give me a break, and read the two lines you are replying to. Specifically, I was talking about a 10-year (apparently it was 12 years) commitment to stay in the ACC. They do this grand experiment with near-constant travel for their student-athletes and agree to run it for 3 generations of athletes. That plus the questionable future of the ACC. Even Ukraine might not agree to terms like that.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »